The Senate question is not totally ideological

Thailand has been grappling with this Senate issue for ages. The debate has evolved with time and been influenced largely by changing political realities, but the ultimate question remains the same: Should Thai democracy be “guided” or not? A few days ago, Parliament tried to deal with the puzzle and almost tore itself apart in the process.

It’s not just Abhisit. A lot of Democrats used to stand on the other side. Appointing senators to “look after” elected representatives of the people never sounds democratically healthy. Democracy, in theory, needs to rise and fall on its own terms. “Guided” democracy is probably only as good as dictatorship with its hair combed.

But democratic principles in Thailand are what both sides of the political divide deem them to be; thus the vociferous acrimony in Parliament. The debate demonstrated anything but a sincere effort to protect true values of democracy. The Democrats rocked the boat, but they did so claiming that the ruling Pheu Thai Party is stretching its electoral mandate to dangerously extreme limits. Which political party is courting trouble – which could snowball to the point of encouraging a new round of military opportunism? This question itself is highly divisive.

“How can you be democratic by having a non-elected chamber of Parliament look over the shoulders of an elected one, in addition to giving its appointees formidable impeachment power?” one side asks. 

“Where are the checks and balances that are necessary in every democracy if senators have to come under the wing of political parties?” the other side shoots back.

Both camps have a point. Pheu Thai insists that democracy is, essentially, a system of implementing the will of the people expressed through elections. The ruling party argues that it won the last poll, so that should be the end of the story. The election, they say, was actually won on several platforms including a promise to repeal “the coup legacy” left in the 2007 Constitution.

Hitting back, the Democrats ask Pheu Thai what the three pillars of democracy are. Democrat debaters have tried to portray the charter amendment bill – that would revert back to a direct election of the Senate – as a thinly veiled attempt by Pheu Thai to completely dominate Parliament after having won executive power. With the legislature and executive branch under absolute political control, the judiciary would become a democratic pillar under siege, the Democrats say. No democracy can survive with that kind of imbalance, they insist.

Thailand’s political crisis has defied democratic theories, written new lessons and encouraged soul-searching. The recent showdown in Parliament must have undermined a lot of people’s faith in their political ideals, but the bright side is that everyone was given the opportunity to keep thinking and questioning. While Pheu Thai should be commended for trying to get its way through parliamentary steps, it has tested the limits of the term “electoral mandate”. While the Democrats have caused exasperation with their almost no-holds-barred delaying tactics, they did offer food for thought when they really started debating.

The pros and cons of an appointed or elected Senate have not quite changed. It’s the feelings toward the concept that have gone through transformation. Maybe it’s part of the process of growing old, or maybe new experiences make us discard some old principles. Many years back, everyone turned to the US when they wanted support in opposing so-called internal security acts, which seemed to be very politically incorrect. Terrorism has changed everything. Yet the most glaring example of an ideological switch in Parliament last week was probably not Abhisit, but the daughter of slain red-shirt militant chief Kattiya Sawasdiphol.

Pheu Thai MP Kattiyaa Sawasdiphol (who shares her father’s name) used to be quite active on the opposite side of the red camp. Her father’s assassination drove her to the other end. If he had not been killed, she would not have been there in Parliament defending the concept of elected senators.

Ideology is supposed to be unwavering, but feelings fade and die. Which one of them is dictating Thai politics? Under other circumstances, Abhisit and Kattiyaa may have switched sides. He could have been fighting “military dictators” and she could have been lashing out at “parliamentary tyrants”. Ideology can be influential, but it will give in to real experiences most of the times. After all, it’s the latter that make people change.